Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council exposing her to asbestos during works being completed under a disabled facilities grant. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains she was exposed to asbestos during works being completed under a disabled facilities grant. She also complains about severe delays in the adaptation works being progressed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X said the Council awarded her a joint disabled facilities grant (DFG). She says she has been waiting nine years for work to start on her daughter’s adaptions, and three years for her.
7. Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Council progressing the DFG works is late. This is because it was reasonable for her to have complained about the delays earlier. This is especially because Mrs X must reasonably have been aware of the delays at the time they were happening. Therefore, there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
8. The Council appointed a home improvement agency (HIA) to managing the adaptation works to Mrs X’s property. The HIA contracted a builder to complete extension works.
9. In February 2024, the contracted builder cut through the plasterboard ceiling of Mrs X’s study to look for pipework. Underneath the plasterboard was asbestos insulation board. This caused an uncontrolled release of asbestos. This was not noted by the builder at the time.
10. The next morning, another worker identified the uncontrolled release and sealed the room. The HIA was then notified around an hour later. The HIA arranged for material to be sampled and for air testing to be completed.
11. The HIA completed an investigation of the incident. The HIA noted two main causes of the incident:
• That no asbestos refurbishment and demolition survey had been completed prior to works being started.
• That while the asbestos survey had been requested, no checks were completed by the HIA to ensure the contractor had completed the required survey.
12. The HIA identified several service improvements to prevent the fault from reoccurring, including:
• All HIA staff to complete asbestos awareness training.
• To request evidence that contractors have completed asbestos awareness training.
• Email to all contractors to remind them to complete refurbishment and demolition asbestos survey before completing any construction work.
• Review and update HIA work procedures to include a check that asbestos surveys have been completed.
• All relevant staff to be briefed on the incident.
• Review of all projects to ensure asbestos surveys have been completed.
13. I am satisfied with the recommendations made by the HIA and do not consider we would recommend anything further in terms of service improvements.
14. The Council says that any responsibility for the works rests with the HIA and so the Council is not at fault for the specific issues regarding the incident. However, in this case, the Council agreed to project manage the works on Mrs X’s behalf. The Council in turn commissioned the HIA to deliver the DFG works on its behalf. While the Council can contract out its services, it cannot contract out its responsibilities. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council is responsible for the actions for the HIA, and in turn, the actions of any contractors used by the HIA.
15. I am also satisfied the HIA has accepted fault for the incident occurring. The fault will have caused significant uncertainty to Mrs X and her family with respect to whether the asbestos exposure will have any impact on their future health.
16. The Council has offered Mrs X £4000 to recognise the injustice caused by the fault accepted. I am satisfied the Council’s offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Our guidance details that we would usually recommend up to £1000 to recognise distress caused in the most exceptional cases. In this case, the Council has gone over this amount. I am satisfied the offer is appropriate as it recognises the distress caused to the whole family, as well taking into account the distress caused by the significant uncertainty of any future implications to their health.
17. An investigation would not lead to a recommendation for a higher remedy amount. Therefore, an investigation is not a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman